I'll answer genuine queries.
But I am quite genuine; I give props and receive them with all the best evil Lizardoid geniuses.
Iraqi Shias protest against US troops
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
But I am quite genuine; I give props and receive them with all the best evil Lizardoid geniuses.
So in essence, due to the animosity between Sunnie and Shia which has been going on for however long (an hour, a day, a week, a year, a millennia or two, whatever ... doesn't matter it's just an excuse to justify murder) Americans have every right under the Sun to conquer Iraq, build protected military compounds to maintain their army, use a religous-tax along with massacring "infidel" Muslims and any other means to ultimately persuade all Iraqis, as the centuries turn into millennia, to worship Bush Jr and some idiot sayings of his that later contemporaries compile into a book called "Bushisms" - which future generations can ponder of what their "true" underlying meanings really are....The overcivilised and peaceful had been embroiled in a war for 700 years, the longest between any two entities in history.
Now, on Three everybody, turn towarths DC and pray that Bush, God-ths Lathst "Thrue" Propheth .. bla bla bla bla th th th .... ... .. .... ...
Last edited:
So in essence, due to the animosity between Sunnie and Shia which has been going on for however long (an hour, a day, a week, a year, a millennia or two, whatever ... doesn't matter it's just an excuse to justify murder) Americans have every right under the Sun to conquer Iraq, build protected military compounds to maintain their army, use a religous-tax along with massacring "infidel" Muslims and any other means to ultimately persuade all Iraqis, as the centuries turn into millennia, to worship Bush Jr and some idiot sayings of his that later contemporaries compile into a book called "Bushisms" - which future generations can ponder of what their "true" underlying meanings really are....
Now, on Three everybody, turn towarths DC and pray that Bush, God-ths Lathst "Thrue" Propheth .. bla bla bla bla th th th .... ... .. .... ...
I'm glad you at least realise the ME is overcivilised and peaceful compared to the Americans.
Anyway that was just a reminder of exactly how peaceful the overcivilised were, if you know anything about those wars.
I think the "rife for misuse" is more applicable to the "free trade" and "arms trade" practised by the major Western countries today. Shall we give up on capitalism? After all it appears to create severe economic disparity, since the ones with power use it to exploit the rest of the world
Sam, honestly, was the conquest of Persia by the Muslim Arabs a GOOD thing or was it an EVIL thing.
Which is your stance? Right now it seems to me that you are trying to use any means to justify Muslim aggression and now it seems you are also making it up?
Secondly, there can be no equality because:
- non-Muslims are not equal.
- Polytheists are not equal.
- Women are not equal.
Jesus, in your own small paragraph you mention “Kings” – Kings are not equal.
Secondly, prove that this notion of equality is an Islamic concept.
I have not idea where you pulled that one out of? Thin air?
It is most certainly not an Islamic concept. And Muslims never practiced equality, neither among themselves nor among those that they conquered.
Never - so it is foreign concept that was never implimented.
(note: "Why wasn't it?" is the better question...)
Again, has it come to THIS? Misrepresenting your own quotes and then blatantly making up information? Also, you one liner implies that the Persians were the only ones crushed by Amries of Religous fanatics. Saying: The period of Arab conquest ended with Persia (620-680) is misleading to say the least, it's also not right (again see Spain, Sudan, etc...).
Persia was one of many (see: Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, not to mention the battles such as the Arab siege of Constantinople etc.. conflicts between Europeans(see: Sicilians, Iberians, ect..) with Muslim Arabs continued well into the 11th centruy)
Your statement is also misleading in that it implies that the Muslim war of aggression ended. It did not. Muslims, perhaps not Arab Muslims, but Muslims nonetheless, continued to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims, look at the wars that eventually took Constantinople, the wars in Afghanistan, the wars in India, etc...
Look, I never once justify European colonization. I would never say it was good for the Aboriginals in Australia or natives in America, or any other people, that they were conquered. Yet, if I were you, I’d try to say that the Aztecs had it coming. Then I’d try to sell you a story that implies they were better off for it to boot!!!
History is just that – lets not make it up.
Which is your stance? Right now it seems to me that you are trying to use any means to justify Muslim aggression and now it seems you are also making it up?
Firstly, beginning with Mohammad and extending to his "companions" there has never been a state of pure "equality".
Secondly, there can be no equality because:
- non-Muslims are not equal.
- Polytheists are not equal.
- Women are not equal.
Jesus, in your own small paragraph you mention “Kings” – Kings are not equal.
Secondly, prove that this notion of equality is an Islamic concept.
I have not idea where you pulled that one out of? Thin air?
It is most certainly not an Islamic concept. And Muslims never practiced equality, neither among themselves nor among those that they conquered.
Never - so it is foreign concept that was never implimented.
(note: "Why wasn't it?" is the better question...)
Yea, tell that to the Spaniards et.al..
Again, has it come to THIS? Misrepresenting your own quotes and then blatantly making up information? Also, you one liner implies that the Persians were the only ones crushed by Amries of Religous fanatics. Saying: The period of Arab conquest ended with Persia (620-680) is misleading to say the least, it's also not right (again see Spain, Sudan, etc...).
Persia was one of many (see: Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, not to mention the battles such as the Arab siege of Constantinople etc.. conflicts between Europeans(see: Sicilians, Iberians, ect..) with Muslim Arabs continued well into the 11th centruy)
Your statement is also misleading in that it implies that the Muslim war of aggression ended. It did not. Muslims, perhaps not Arab Muslims, but Muslims nonetheless, continued to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims, look at the wars that eventually took Constantinople, the wars in Afghanistan, the wars in India, etc...
Look, I never once justify European colonization. I would never say it was good for the Aboriginals in Australia or natives in America, or any other people, that they were conquered. Yet, if I were you, I’d try to say that the Aztecs had it coming. Then I’d try to sell you a story that implies they were better off for it to boot!!!
History is just that – lets not make it up.
Lastly, you Sam said that the European Renaissance could NOT have occurred without Islam.
I disagree. It happened before Islam, it most certainly could happen again without Islam. Is that to say that the Arab copies of Greek material that filtered into Europe were not important. No I didn't say that. Of course, IMHO, copied work of Greeks implies that it was the copied works of the Greeks that inspired Europeans. Not the plagiarizers.
Make sense?
So, then I simply asked for a few examples of "Islamic" (surprise surprise probably Persian) examples of marble work. Who was the premiere "Islamic" sculptors in the Islamic World? They had access to the polytheistic Greek marbles - so what is their improvements?
A picture of an Islamic Golden Age sculpted piece of marble would be a good start.... An important Caliph perhaps?
Surely this should be a pinch. Most people can name many of the great Italian artists of the Renaissance as well as recognize the great Greek works that predate them. You should be able to do so with ease for the Islamic Golden Age - I mean, it was THEY that were DIRECTLY responsible for the Italians precipitating the Renaissance.
So?" Who are THEY? What is an example THEIR work?
Thanks,
Michael
I disagree. It happened before Islam, it most certainly could happen again without Islam. Is that to say that the Arab copies of Greek material that filtered into Europe were not important. No I didn't say that. Of course, IMHO, copied work of Greeks implies that it was the copied works of the Greeks that inspired Europeans. Not the plagiarizers.
Make sense?
So, then I simply asked for a few examples of "Islamic" (surprise surprise probably Persian) examples of marble work. Who was the premiere "Islamic" sculptors in the Islamic World? They had access to the polytheistic Greek marbles - so what is their improvements?
A picture of an Islamic Golden Age sculpted piece of marble would be a good start.... An important Caliph perhaps?
Surely this should be a pinch. Most people can name many of the great Italian artists of the Renaissance as well as recognize the great Greek works that predate them. You should be able to do so with ease for the Islamic Golden Age - I mean, it was THEY that were DIRECTLY responsible for the Italians precipitating the Renaissance.
So?" Who are THEY? What is an example THEIR work?
Thanks,
Michael
Indeed; we should. I do not fault it in all areas, but I fault it in its synthesis.
After all it appears to create severe economic disparity, since the ones with power use it to exploit the rest of the world
Agreed. But there are many ideologies I would not replace it with.
I could tell you, but frankly I doubt any of it would ring a bell or even convince you.
Frankly, I see no point in wasting my energies looking up references for people who are not really wanting to learn.
It makes no real difference to me what you think of the Islamic peoples or their efforts. You can continue to hold the opinions you please.
Again
1) You a trying to justify war, rape, murder and carnage. ... they were invited...
2) Are telling me that IF a handful Iraqis invited the US Army into Iraq, of which there were many Kurds and many Iraqis doing so - they the war is justified and the USA now has the right to conquer Iraq ... utterly. Is THAT what you are saying?
3) Sam, why do you suppose the Spanish fought to remove ALL of Islam. Not just some, ALL. Why? Hmmmm makes one wonder just what's so great about Islam that a people living under it's protective umbrella of "equality" would go to such lengths to scrub the entire country free of it?
Yes, odd that one - huh?
4) You've again missed this question: Was the conquest of Persia by the Muslim Arabs a GOOD thing or was it an EVIL thing.
EVIL or GOOD?
Michael
Sam,
I asked for a peice of sculpted Art and maybe a name of the Artist.
I have looked. I have not found anything. So I am asking you.
Again, I hold the opinion that it was the downfall of the rule of monotheism that precipitated the Italian Renaissance. That was the key. Therefor, you assertion that it was a direct result of Islam is a direct assault on my theory. So I am asking you, and doing so in a learned manner, so provide some evidence to back up your assertion.
Marble work is a good place to continue.
Michael
I asked for a peice of sculpted Art and maybe a name of the Artist.
I have looked. I have not found anything. So I am asking you.
Again, I hold the opinion that it was the downfall of the rule of monotheism that precipitated the Italian Renaissance. That was the key. Therefor, you assertion that it was a direct result of Islam is a direct assault on my theory. So I am asking you, and doing so in a learned manner, so provide some evidence to back up your assertion.
Marble work is a good place to continue.
Michael
It was necessary for them to gain their independence from the Persians and maintain it. After that the decision to conquer Persia was based on the knowledge that the Arabs (especially those who had been fighting the Persians for a long time) knew they would suffer repercussions and when they realised the Persians were weak they took their chance. They did the same with the Byzantines but when they could not defeat them, they retreated.
Good or bad? That depends. Was the Persian conquest of the Arabs good or bad? Was the Byzantine conquest of the Arabs good or bad? Was the Greek conquest of Iraq (then Mesopotamia) good or bad? The 700 years of war between Persia and Rome were made up of ransacking and looting on both sides, good or bad?
War is always bad, but that does not mean people should not fight for their freedom. Besides, it was not the end of it. The 700 years of war aside, that part of the world saw the Crusades, World War I, World War II. Should the Allies not have fought on behalf of the Jews? Was Russia good or bad? Was Dresden good or bad? Was the Holocaust good or bad? War is always bad, but sometimes it is necessary.
Re: Spain
Last edited:
Sorry to have distracted you: the question was, aside from the valuable lesson that becoming Muslim is a necessary step in the acquisition of social equality among Muslims, and never underestimate or turn you back on a follower of Mohammed, what exactly did the Persians learn from their conquerers? What about Islam, specifically, brought improvement over their former state?samcdkey said:
We are looking for some reason to refer to a time period as a Golden Age brought about by Islam, rather than a Golden Age for Islam itself, brought about by its subjects and conquered civilizations.
I would say the focus on knowledge and medicine were two of the most important contributions
http://www.muslimheritage.com/
I was just explaining why all the Muslims vanished from Spain. Forced conversion or torture/death.
Although I should have just linked to the Inquisition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Sam, again you are justifying war. The Persians had clients in Arabia that paid for the privilege of trade within the Persian Empire. This money was from those tribes that had settled down and lived along the edges of the empire. Most likely this money was used to maintain garrisons and prevent nomadic bandits (which were rife in that area) I'm sure some was used to make life plush for those in control too. As is always the case. If the Persians attempted to conquer Mecca or Medina then they were wrong to do so and the Arabs living there have the right to defend themselves. Arabs do not have the right to "take advantage" of a weak neighbor and attack them.
If the Persians conquered the Arabian peninsula then yes the Arabs would have a right to defend themselves, IMHO. The Arabs did not have the “moral” right to conquer territories outside of their lands.
So it seems that you are suggesting that because the Persians were weak then the Arabs took advantage of this and killed them. Not because Persians were in any position to attack Arabia nor had they ever conquered the Arabian peninsula but because the Persians were vulnerable.
Is this correct?
Can you not see that the USA used similar reasoning to attack Iraq.
The Germans did the same to attack France.
The Japanese used the “knife at our throat” to attack the Koreans.
The Romans attacked the Gaul for similar, made up hogwash.
and on it goes.
See here, it’s really quite simple. Aggressive war is wrong. Wrong equals bad.
Q: Was the Byzantine conquest of the Arabs good or bad?
A: BAD
Q: Was the Greek conquest of Iraq (then Mesopotamia) good or bad?
A: BAD
Q: The 700 years of war between Persia and Rome were made up of ransacking and looting on both sides,
A: Anytime it was war of aggression it was bad.
Now I have two question:
1) Was it right or wrong for the USA to aggressively attack and conquer Iraq?
2) Was it right or wrong for the Arab Muslims to aggressively attack and conquer Persia?
So this means that the times when Mohammad lead armies against other tribes within Arabia it was bad, because war is always bad? So sometime, Mohammad did bad things – such when he engaged in war?
Is that true?
Americans right now maintain that they are fighting for their freedom. Against “radical” Muslims who would steal their freedoms.
This is a slippery slope. Lets agree that war of aggression is evil.
GW Bush himself couldn’t have put it any better.
So sometimes take the war to the enemy hey? Sometimes murder is acceptable hey? All the Zoroastrian Priests had it coming! F*cking infidels! All the Persian women and children deserved rape and murder f*cing infidel whores and daemon-spawn. The men desired POW-Slave status.
That’ll learn em!
Because hey, sometimes War of Aggression is necessary. Especially when you want to steal what others have. Then it’s really necessary.
The Egyptians were trying to conquer the Arabian Peninsula? Why? They never thought to do this in 7000 years but they JUST HAPPEN to think of it RIGHT at the same time the Muslim war of aggression within Arabia was ending.
Wow what a coincidence.
The Syrians Just happened to ALSO at that very same time want to attack the Arabs as well?
Wow - another coincidence.
Yes, just like those evil little Jews in those 3 tribes they needed to be eliminated.
Well as for the Persians - yes, as you said, sometimes war is necessary.
Well, we went from the conquest of Persia was good because it brought about the "Islamic" Golden Age to … well, sometimes War is necessary. It’s a step I suppose.
all good people go to heaven ….. even the Jews.
Yes, in the same manner as the Zoroastrians were butchered so were the Spanish Muslims. Both times it was wrong.
However, you said the Muslims were invited and ergo it was somehow then OK to butcher Spaniards, rape women and sell children and all the other disgusting vile acts that accompany the conquering of another people.
Well, then you would agree that the USA being invited by Kurdish Iraqis and some Shia and even some Sunnie means the USA has the full moral authority to conquer Iraq. To do what it takes.
…. sometimes war is necessary.
Michael
Last edited:
You're twisting my words, I never said the conquest of Persia was necessary for the Islamic Golden Age. I said Islam ushered in the Golden Age for the Arabs and the Persians contributed substantially to it. As for the conquest of Spain, I'm not certain why the Moors went there, if I find out more I will add to it. I don't believe in wars of aggression either, but if people ask for help (like the Jews under Hitler), is it right to turn away? I know conditions were pretty bad for the Jews under the Catholics in Spain.
e.g. the genocide in Sudan today, if the people ask for help, should the UN turn away?
e.g. the genocide in Sudan today, if the people ask for help, should the UN turn away?
And then held them back, held them to that same "golden era" for the past gazillion years! And they're still in the same era ...and mostly due to Islam.
No, apparently not. In this day and time, we have to wait until every single person on Earth approves of it before we do anything to help anyone.
As for the UN helping ...has the UN ever, in it's entire history, actually helped anyone in such a situation?
The UN sucks giant donkey dicks!
Baron Max
Not really they were held back mostly by the divide created by the Crusades, which effectively cut off communication between the East and the West.
After that they, like the Persians succumbed to colonialism because after reaching economic success, they fell back into decadence and stopped progressing. This is what is happening in the West now too, with society fracturing along community lines and moving back into fundamentalism.
Maintaining a social structure requires social commitment and few communities are really capable of it.